SUO: Re: Keeping This List Focused [Response #2]
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
FF = Frank Farance
JA = Jon Awbrey
JFS = John F. Sowa
JFS: In the past, many of Jon A's messages have been criticized as being
"off topic" or even "off the wall". But he can write clear prose
when he sets his mind to it.
JFS: In particular, I strongly endorse his recent message (copied below),
which summarizes concerns that many of us have felt about the way
that the SUO project is being conducted.
JFS: First of all, I want to emphasize that the SUMO developers have done
some very good work by selecting and organizing a large collection
of axioms that can serve as an excellent resource for ontology
development.
JFS: But unlike some of the SUMO promoters, I do not consider SUMO
to be an integrated upper ontology, but merely a very useful
catalog of axioms that could be used to build ontologies.
That does not diminish the importance of the SUMO work
in any way, since such a catalog is very valuable.
It should not, however, be considered a candidate
for a standard "upper ontology".
FF: Yes, you are free to disagree with technical topics.
However, the main feature about SUMO (and IFF and the
conformance discussion) is that standards wording has
been proposed. You should propose your own standards
wording if you have ideas for improvement.
Anybody can propose "wording". I myself make up six new words
before breakfast everyday, just for the mental exercise of it.
The question is how much of that "wording" will make sense over
the long haul, in computable, effective, pragmatic terms. I will
give the "new improved modular SUMO" (NIM-SUMO?) a fresh look, but
the conformance "wording" was "Pure Blue Sky" (PBS), and I know PBS
when I see it.
FF: You've stated many times that you like a "modular" approach,
but you have proposed no standards words ... please make
a proposal that we can discuss.
JFS: Jim S. has tried to keep the major list free of "discussions that
don't directly relate to the work of the SUO WG". But the question
of what "directly relates" depends on one's interpretation of the
goals. In particular, I would say that the piling up of axioms
for SUMO is less directly related to "the work of the SUO WG"
than the question of how those (or any other) axioms should be
organized.
FF: What "directly relates" is: proposals that suggest/develop/discuss/improve
standards words. We are in an IEEE-SA standards development project; our
"output" is a standard -- a "document" (can be organized in many different
ways); our "development" is the creation of this "document".
JFS: One very serious issue that must be addressed is the question of
how the SUO relates to the OpenCyc project. For more info,
see the FAQ list of OpenCyc:
sic: http://www.opencyc.org/faq1.html
FF: Assuming there were consensus to include this kind of information,
this explanation might be an "informative annex" (or maybe a separate
document) ... are you willing to make a proposal for these standards words?
JFS: They are promising to release 6,000 concept types (with axioms)
"very soon now." When that happens, there are very serious questions
of how and whether those concepts and axioms can be shared, integrated,
or somehow used with SUMO. With the current monolithic structure of
both Cyc and SUMO, such sharing is unlikely. But with other ways
of organizing the ontology, such sharing would be much easier.
JFS: Discussion of how the ontology should be organized to facilitate
sharing are, I believe, central to "the work of the SUO WG."
There are other issues that are also important, and I agree with
Jon's note below that their proponents should not be silenced
or exiled to outer Siberia.
FF: Jon A. is free to have his discussion on the ONT list. As you can see from the ONT list,
he is getting very little response to his messages (approximately 98% of the messages on
ONT are from Jon A.). However, I'm not interested in having this list choked with messages
from Jon A. (as he has done in the past). For example, in the recent E-mails from Jon A. on "Inquiry Driven Ontology Development", no one is responding to the list on that topic ... Jon A.
has included private responses, which might give the appearance that people are discussing his
work on the list, but largely there has been little discussion of his topics.
FF: John S., I think you've pointed out in the past that if Jon A.
could improve the presentation of his work, it might get more
attention and response. Currently, his comments are getting
virtually no attention on ONT (and minimal attention on SUO,
as compared to the number of his postings).
FF: I have responses to Jon A.'s E-mail below ...
JA: The IEEE SUO WG is chartered to develop a standard, true.
JA: The IEEE SUO WG is not chartered to develop a standard, any standard.
JA: The presumption of the charter is that it be a good standard, one that
has a chance of being voluntarity adopted by the community of practice.
JA: I believe that most members of this group share or espouse the aim
that the standard we arrive at in the end should be qualified to be
a widely respected and internationally supported ontology standard.
JA: Many members of this group have serious concerns about the process
that will be needed to fulfill this charter or to achieve this goal.
FF: Any process concerns are being addressed by IEEE.
We are waiting for their formal response.
I was talking more about the way that we discuss things here,
and the matters in which we have free choice from day to day.
JA: In particular, many members of the group have serious reservations
about the advisability of narrowing our focus in the way that you
are suggesting at this time. The state of consensus in the group
about how to proceed simply does not justify any degree of narrow
exclusivity at this stage. The idea that discussions of ontology
should be marginalized in the way that you recommend strikes me
as just a little bit strange.
FF: The discussions on this list are for the purposes of developing the standard.
If you have standards wording to propose, then please do so.
Again, with the "wording". Everything may be "just a form of words" in the end,
but we are supposed to think about what we are doing before we go emitting words.
This is not just another petty standards body. The SUO WG has cut out for itself
a world-wide swatch of cloth and is now struggling to hoist it up a two-foot mast.
The spectacle of it would be comical if some of the motley crew that are assembled
in the ring were not so deadpan serious about it -- okay, I confess, sometimes that
only makes it more comical. But there are indeed serious issues to be tackled here,
topics that have never been addressed before in the international semi-community,
questions potentially more costly in economic and human terms if answered wrong
than the "standards" (or lack thereof) of English versus Metric screws in your
average multi-billion $ (US billion) space probe. So I think that we should
slow down and try to think about as many of the theoretical implications and
the practical consequences as we can before we start issuing "wording" that
others will have to try to live by.
Get to the rest later ...
Jon Awbrey
JA: You and Adam Pease have gotten into the habit of directing people,
entirely by personal fiat, to leave the discussion for what you
judge or pre-judge to be their lack of focus or their defects
of relevance. I believe that this is highly inappropriate.
If you have specific reasons for your presumed estimations
of relevance then all reasonable people will of course
want to hear them.
FF: The question is whether or not postings relate to the development of this standard.
Proposals for standards words (or *specific* changes or improvements) are welcome.
Other discussion that does not directly relate to the development of this standard
should be elsewhere ... Jim S. has suggested that you explain your relationship to
the standards development (either the existing documents, or a proposal from you
on standards wording).
FF: In my opinion, a very large majority of you postings have nothing to do with standards
development ... no standards wording has been suggested. If I've misinterpreted your
postings, can you point to specific proposals for standards wording?
JA: For my part, I believe that it would be healthy for us, conducting ourselves
as reflective and critical practitioners are supposed to do, to open up a
discussion of how the heck we go about rationally evaluating qualities
like relevance and suitability to a purpose, anyway. The exercise
would work, not merely to remedy the evident problems in our group
process, but also serve the quality of the prospective standard.
JA: I think that I can speak for many people when I say that, when we voted
for whatever "working documents" that we voted for, that we did so in
the spirit of "not blocking inquiry" on a plurality of many fronts.
I do not sense that many of us anticipated that we would be quite
so quickly punished for the good deeds of our tolerance, nor
quite so fastly chained to these non-blocks of inquiry.
FF: There are no "blocks" to "alternative fronts", the focus has always be the same:
developing a standard, and contributions that directly relate to that development,
i.e., proposals for specific standards wording (additions, changes, etc.).
FF: You are free to make contributions for specific standards wording (for this project).
I encourage you to do so.
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤